Paul v. Haley’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2018
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not every 'good idea' is a legally protectible [sic] idea. ... [A]n idea which is a variation on a basic theme will not support a finding of novelty. ... Even though an idea need not reflect 'the flash of genius' to warrant protection, it must show genuine novelty and invention, and not merely a clever or useful adaptation of existing knowledge. ... Improvement of standard technique or quality, the judicious use of existing means, or the mixture of known ingredients in somewhat different proportions-all the variations on a basic theme-partake more of the nature of elaboration and renovation than of innovation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“are in the public domain and may freely be used by anyone with impunity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a music video show broadcast over the NBC television network. In granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant network, the court found that the plaintiff was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.